# FILED
October 3, 199 6 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMIN AL APPEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE AUGUST 1996 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) APPELLEE, ) ) No. 03-C-01- 9510-CC-00310 ) ) Greene County v. ) ) James E . Beckne r, Judge ) ) (Theft) ALLEN RAY RICKER, ) ) APPELLA NT. )

FOR TH E APPEL LANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: T. Wood Smith Charles W. Burson Attorney at Law Attorney Gen eral & Repor ter 128 South Main St reet, Suite 101 500 Charlotte A venue Greenevil le, TN 37743 Nashvil le, TN 37243-0497 Darian B. Tay lor Assistant Attorney Gener al 450 James Roberts on Parkway Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 C. Berkley Bell Distric t Attorney General 113 West Church St., Suite 401 Greenevil le, TN 37745 Michelle G reen Asst. Dist rict Attor ney General 113 West Church St., Suite 401 Greenevil le, TN 37745

OPINION FILE D:_______________________
AFFIRMED
Joe B. Jo nes, Pre siding Jud ge 

### O P I N I O N2 The appellant, All en Ray Ri cker, was convicted of theft under $10,000, a Class D fe lony, by a jury of his peers. The trial court found that the appellant was a standard offenderand imposed a Rang e I sentence of confinement for thr ee (3) years in the Department of Corr

ection. The appell ant contendsthat the trial court committed error of prejudicial dimensions by : (a) deny ing his moti on for a judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the state’s case in chi ef because the state fail ed to prove t he venue of the offense and f aile d to p rove that the person named in the indic tment was the owner of the wrecker in q uest ion, and ( b) p ermi tti ng t he st ate t o re open itscas e in chi ef to pr ove the
venue of the offense. After a thoroug h review of the record, th e briefs subm itted by the parties, and th e law that governs the issues pr

esented for rev iew, it is the opinion of this Court that the judgment of the tr ial court s hould be affirmed. Contraryto the appellant’s contention, the Stat e of Tennessee established bey ond
a reasonable doubt that the victim w as the owner of the w recker. The v ictim testi fied that the name on the titl e was that of his former busines s, but that he ow ned the wrec ker. The trial cour

t permitted the State of Tenn essee to reopen i ts case in c hief after defense counsel had made a mot ion for judgment of acq uittal. The state establi shed that the offense occurred i n Greene County

. Whether the State of Tennessee should have been permitted to reopen its case in chieffor the purpose of in troducing n ew evi dence rested w ithin thesound discretion ofthe trial court. See State v. Ha rrington , 627 S.W.2d 345, 348 (Tenn. 1981); State v. Kennedy , 649 S.W .2d 275, 280 (Tenn . Crim. App. 1982); Clariday v. State , 552 S.W.2d 759, 770-71 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976). This Court has previously held thatthe trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitt ing the State ofTennessee to reopen i ts case and prove additiona l facts after defense counsel had made a motion for judgment of

acquittal

. State v. Richard Gol tri e , Bradley C ounty No. 03- C-01-9203-C R-00095, sli p op. at 7-8 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxvil le, March 29, 1993), per . app . denied (Tenn. 1993). In this case, the trial court did not abuse its dis cretion in g ranting the State ofTennessee’s motion to reopen its case in chi ef.3 ___ ______________________________ _____ _ JOE B. JON ES, PRESIDIN G JUDGE

CONCUR:

____________________________________ PA UL G. SUMM ERS, JUDGE

____________________________________ DAVID G. H AYES, JUD GE